Anyone willing to call him a "Hitler"?

[Busyman™]

Look at the bold.

I agree I support the troops. Basically I think like the troops think, get the job done so they can get their asses home.

The bold was a joke. She was trying to make the point that to her both were asinine statements.

Oh. I do support the troops though....getting their asses home.

I think the reasons have been blurred. Some people bought the war in the beginning because of WMD's.

Fixed

Now we've got a hundred and one explanations why we are there..in that respect I think they've been blurred..that's what I meant.

There three reasons I can come up with.

1) Admin saving face. They are at the point of no return. They stop, they admit defeat. They keep going, they can say, "Well the jobs not done".

2) Fighting the terrorism we created which leads to....

3) Helping the Iraqi people get on the feet after we destroyed what semblence of infrastructure they had.

Did I do ok?

By justification I meant for example...Hitler(there's that name again). Pearl Harbor...etc. These are legitimate reasons to raise the troops.

Agreed. We were actually attacked. I wish we'd isolate ourselves more and if the falls on it's butt, so be it....well I guess we can't in the nuclear age. Trouble will find you anyway.

If you can give me a station that gives a balance between achievement and deaths,car bombs,etc..I'd like to know.

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.

[MaxOverlord]

The bold was a joke. She was trying to make the point that to her both were asinine statements.

Oh. I do support the troops though....getting their asses home.

I think the reasons have been blurred. Some people bought the war in the beginning because of WMD's.

Fixed

Now we've got a hundred and one explanations why we are there..in that respect I think they've been blurred..that's what I meant.

There three reasons I can come up with.

1) Admin saving face. They are at the point of no return. They stop, they admit defeat. They keep going, they can say, "Well the jobs not done".

2) Fighting the terrorism we created which leads to....

3) Helping the Iraqi people get on the feet after we destroyed what semblence of infrastructure they had.

Did I do ok?

By justification I meant for example...Hitler(there's that name again). Pearl Harbor...etc. These are legitimate reasons to raise the troops.

Agreed. We were actually attacked. I wish we'd isolate ourselves more and if the falls on it's butt, so be it....well I guess we can't in the nuclear age. Trouble will find you anyway.

If you can give me a station that gives a balance between achievement and deaths,car bombs,etc..I'd like to know.

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.

Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.
Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)
Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there.
I say take the fight where it is at.

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

[Busyman™]

That's currently impossible. I'd say CNN does a decent job but I don't watch it or Faux News a lot.

I don't see the spin that I see on Faux. Sometimes you can't balance a boat load of troops dying with the fact that troops retook a city.

Which one do you think happens more often?

Faux sugarcoats and lies and then calls it fair and balanced. This goes back to what I said earlier. Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes it's an 80 - 20 split and that's as balanced as it can be....even if it goes against your point of view.

Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.

Well I see things from more than one point of view. If we pull out, it means failure for the Bush admin. Sure it's an American loss.

Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

Yes and no. I wish we wouldn't spearhead every fucking thing is all. Let some other country do that for a change. Our business dealings would lead to foreign politics anyway.

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

I disagree. A report is a report. It is what happened. Partisan comes in when there is spin, lies, and over/under reporting. There are numerous occasions of this at Faux News. Dan Rather screwed up on 60 Minutes. A good show to watch is Hardball. Chris Mathews backs anyone into a corner.

Now I agree with you when balanced means bipartisan on an opinion show.

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)

I disagree....just those 3.

Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there because we brought them there.
I say take the fight where our military started it.

Fixed

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?

[MaxOverlord]

Why does the war have to be trivialized into being "the administrations war?"
I consider this an American war...maybe we part ways there.

Well I see things from more than one point of view. If we pull out, it means failure for the Bush admin. Sure it's an American loss.

Did I hear you right saying your somewhat of an isolationist?

Yes and no. I wish we wouldn't spearhead every fucking thing is all. Let some other country do that for a change. Our business dealings would lead to foreign politics anyway.

In order to find an even balance of Good/Bad you'd have to find a truly bipartisan outlet...and that will never happen.
It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

I disagree. A report is a report. It is what happened. Partisan comes in when there is spin, lies, and over/under reporting. There are numerous occasions of this at Faux News. Dan Rather screwed up on 60 Minutes. A good show to watch is Hardball. Chris Mathews backs anyone into a corner.

Now I agree with you when balanced means bipartisan on an opinion show.

Your three reasons are sufficient(I'm sure if we wanted two we could come up with 10 or 20 more.)

I disagree....just those 3.

Regarding an earlier point you made about Al Qaeda being in Iraq only because we are currently there. I understand what you are saying but the fact that matters now is just that...they are there because we brought them there.
I say take the fight where our military started it.

Fixed

Did we not choose the battlefield?
I think that is a huge military point that no one ever makes.
As far as finishing the job.. the main goal is obviously to stabilize the country.

There is no easy answer-as there never is to war.
I do think Iraq was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I do however realize the dire consequences of a defeat at the hands of Al Qaeda..especially on Muslim land.

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?

Towards your Al Qaeda question. I'll assume your kidding.
Some do see us as foreign invaders...agreed.
No. Not from AZ. Not a big Johnny fan either.

I'll accept your fixing of my military statement.

All reporting is partisan in this respect.
The human element always filters news.
The reporters opinion will undoubtedly enter into the report whether intentional or not.
It is only natural to present things as you(the reporter) sees them.
This means applying things taught in school..which is deeper still considering the bias he or she's teacher has.
Is one religious or not.
Does ones thought pattern lean left or right.
The way the reporter processes the news themselves is a biased filter which in turn is presented to you or me.
You undoubtedly have favorite reporters or journalist...no?
Is it not because of the way they present the news?

[Busyman™]

You do understand that everyone fighting us isn't Al Qaeda, right?

Some of these folk are Iraqis that just look at us as foreign invaders.

Are you from Arizona, perchance?

Towards your Al Qaeda question. I'll assume your kidding.

Somewhat, yes

Some do see us as foreign invaders...agreed.
No. Not from AZ. Not a big Johnny fan either.

I'll accept your fixing of my military statement.

All reporting is partisan in this respect.
The human element always filters news.
The reporters opinion will undoubtedly enter into the report whether intentional or not.
It is only natural to present things as you(the reporter) sees them.
This means applying things taught in school..which is deeper still considering the bias he or she's teacher has.
Is one religious or not.
Does ones thought pattern lean left or right.
The way the reporter processes the news themselves is a biased filter which in turn is presented to you or me.
You undoubtedly have favorite reporters or journalist...no?
Is it not because of the way they present the news?

No and no. For instance when I saw a report about some school district voting to have creationism taught in schools, the report was completely unbiased. The facts were presented (what happened) then interviews with boths sides were presented. There were parents for it and parents against it.

Tbh, the only time I really get filtered news like that is from Faux. I think people like Faux becasue they tell them what they want to hear. They massage their conservative base. The shit they do is unethical. The very fact that they have Ann Coulter regularly on the show amazes me.

[MaxOverlord]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

[Busyman™]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....

[MaxOverlord]

It was unbiased from your perspective. Just as Fox is biased in your perspective.
I don't know how many times I can say this without sounding like a broken record(already do).
Individual filters lead to biased or unbiased.

Put in another light.

Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare


On a completely unrelated issue...I'm now hoping for a Spurs/Pistons finals.

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....

What if I said "Fox isn't biased in my opinion?" That would make me a moron,right?
What if I said "Keith Olbermann is?"
What if I said anything on Fox news would be biased in your opinion.
Why is that?

If you thought the same way the reporters on Fox did you wouldn't call them biased would you?
If you were a big fan of Olbermann(who by the way has his degree in sports journalism)
you would also say he is not biased.

If you know of someone who simply reports the news without some sort of remark,whether its tonal,or facial,or whatever,than let me know.
News reporting has become completely politically motivated.
The news channels are into an agenda now.

Your attempt to be "independent" is noted.
Unfortunately you have not convinced me your thoughts are.
Your ideas are biased by the news you watch...no?
Why is that?

It's a very simple concept.
Your thoughts are only a reflection of other peoples input.
You filter which ones you chose to use to represent your opinion..when its not really an opinion at all.

Tell me something you know(other than personal) that someone didn't know before you did.
We are all filtered all the time.

[Busyman™]

You can point bias can't you? You do know what neutral sounds like, right.

If I simply state what happened like, "The school voted 10 - 1 to teach creationism in school" that is unbiased.

It's like telling the box scores of a game.

Now when I saw the report on TV about the school district, I thought they were morons....simply put.

Sometimes what happens leads to an opinion.

Faux has been biased and ridiculously so. They actually make the effort to spin shit and it's really comical. No really.....

What if I said "Fox isn't biased in my opinion?" That would make me a moron,right?
What if I said "Keith Olbermann is?"
What if I said anything on Fox news would be biased in your opinion.
Why is that?

If you thought the same way the reporters on Fox did you wouldn't call them biased would you?
If you were a big fan of Olbermann(who by the way has his degree in sports journalism)
you would also say he is not biased.

Of course I would. One can see bias if it's written on paper. It has shit to do with like or dislike. I'll throw a liberal under the bus in a minute.

See there's a difference between a person with a strong mind and a sheep. I can like what someone is saying and still know they are biased. I like some of stances Bill O' Reilly has on many issues.

If you know of someone who simply reports the news without some sort of remark,whether its tonal,or facial,or whatever,than let me know.
News reporting has become completely politically motivated.
The news channels are into an agenda now.

Your attempt to be "independent" is noted.
Unfortunately you have not convinced me your thoughts are.
Your ideas are biased by the news you watch...no?
Why is that?

I'll tell you this. Many times if I hear about a story second hand, the person telling me wll inject their own bias in their voice and facial expression. I listen to the facts and may not feel the same way. Look at the organ donor game show thread. It was presented as if it was so disgusting. Needless to say I was not as disgusted as everyone else in the thread. Yeah I'm one independent mofo. I'm black yet am not a "black defender" unless it's warranted. I like liberal and conservative ideals. Pro-choice/Anti gay marriage/Pro-gun ownership but pro gun control/anti-Iraq war/pro-welfare reform/pro-immigration reform/pro-business/pro-affirmative action with more rules.......there's more but I go into that another time.
It's a very simple concept.
Your thoughts are only a reflection of other peoples input.
You filter which ones you chose to use to represent your opinion..when its not really an opinion at all.

Tell me something you know(other than personal) that someone didn't know before you did.
We are all filtered all the time.

I can agree on that. You form an opinion about anything by what facts are presented. If new facts pop-up, you opnion can change.

For instance, if it was reported that a husband murdered his wife, you may think the husband is scum. Later it might be reported that the husband didn't do it but it was the wife's lesbian lover. The opinion would change then.
That's not bias though.

Purposely misrepresenting the facts or lying is another story though.

Also, many times reporters have no facial expressions. I don't see them frown when it's a bad story. I might see them smile for an upbeat story.

[MaxOverlord]

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.